An order refusing amendment of pleading is revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it is a 'case decided' within the meaning of the section.

( 1 ) IN this application under Section 115 of the C. P. Code against an order, refusing a prayer for amendment of the written statement, passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, 7th Bench, on September, 17, J9s3, a preliminary objection has been raised that revision under Section 115 does not lie from an order granting or refusing amendment of pleadings because by such order there is no 'case decided' within the meaning of the section.

( 2 ) IN support of this objection, reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate for the Opposite Party on certain decisions of the Allahabad, Lahore and Sind High Courts (such as Dassuma v. Kundanmal, AIR 1946 Sind 36), where it has ueen held that an order made under Order 6, Rule 17 of the C. P. Code is trot revisable under Section 115. ;

( 3 ) THE broad principle on which these decisions resl is that a 'case decided' in Section 115 means the decision of the claim in a suit, so that an amendment of a pleading, which does not dispose of the claim in the suit or the rights of the parties to the cause, cannot be brought under Section 115. In short the word 'case' did not include a part of a case/ [buddhu Lal v. Mewa Ram, AIR 1921 All 1 (FB) ). But as we shall see, this principle has not been adhered to rigidly even in the Allahabad High Court and some interlocutory orders have been held to be revisable under Section 115 even though they may not completely dispose of the suit (Ramrichpal Singh v. Dayaand Sarup.

( 4 ) THANE has, of course, been a judicial controversy on the above question which may be said to be as old as the Code itself and the different High Courts in India have, so to say, been divided into two camps and it is only a decision of the Supreme Court which can now settle this controversy. We find, however, that so far as the Calcutta High Court is concerned, revision has been admitted and allowed from interlocutory orders, including orders relating to amendment of pleadings (e. g. , Lokenath v. Abani Nath, 37 Cal WN 1093 : (AIR 1934 Cal 102); Indti-bala v. Lakshmi Narayan, 60 Cal L J 91 : (AIR 1935 Cal 102); Abdul Rahim v. Abdul Jabbar, and we prefer to adhere to that view, for reasons which may be stated briefly as follows : (a) The word 'case' not being defined in the Code, it should be interpreted literally, with reference to any thing in the context which may be relevant. . In Section 115, the relevant words are --"the High Court may call for the record of any casand which has been decided. . . . . . " there is a consensus of opinion amongst the High Courts that the word 'case' in this context is wider than the term 'suit' or appeal and that an application for leave to suet as pauper, an application to set aside an 'ex parts' decree or to restore a suit dismissed for default and tha like, which are in the nature of 'independent proceedings', is a 'case' within the meaning of Section 115 (cf. Radha Mohan v. Abbas Ali, ILR 53 All 612 : (AIR 1931 All 294) (F. B. ). (b) Once it is conceded that the records of a proceeding which is not necessarily a suit may be called for and the decision therein may be revised by the High Court, the emphasis shifts to the word 'decided'. It is true that a suit is not completely decided unless there is a 'decree' within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, or a 'final order1 which has been explained by the Privy Council as 'an order which finally disposes of the rights of the parties', though it is not a 'decree' (Abdul Rahman v. D. K. Cassim, and Sons, AIR 1933 PC 58 ). Now, as the definition of 'order' in Section 2 (14) shows, the word 'decision' is wides than the word 'decree' and all decisions of the Court which are not 'decrees' are 'orders', which include both final and interlocutory orders. It follows that an interlocutory order may claim to be a 'decision' within the meaning of the expression 'case detided' in Section 115 of the Code. (c) Though no decision has gone to the extent of hold